For summaries from opinions prior to August, 2018, view PDF versions here.
State of Iowa
v.
Mark Bernard Retterath
Following a remand from the decision in State v. Retterath, 2017 WL 6516729 (Iowa Ct App. Dec. 20, 2017), in which the court of appeals conditionally affirmed defendant’s conviction of solicitation to commit murder but ordered an in camera review of the privileged mental health records of two trial witnesses for possible exculpatory information, the State appealed from a district court order granting defendant a new trial. The State contended the court erred in finding retrial was necessary because the court was unable to review the mental health records of one of the witnesses on remand due to the witness’s refusal to consent. The court of appeals reversed the district court’s ruling. Defendant seeks further review.
Resister
State of Iowa
Applicant
Mark Bernard Retterath
Attorney for the Resister
Louis S. Sloven
Attorneys for the Applicant
Alfredo Parrish
Gina Messamer
Jessica Donels
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
15-15-5
Dec 14, 2021 1:30 PM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Mitchell County, James M. Drew, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS. Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Mullins and Schumacher, JJ. Opinion by Tabor, P.J. (14 pages)
The State appeals from the district court’s order granting Mark Retterath a new trial for solicitation to commit murder following a remand in 2017, when we instructed the district court to conduct an in camera review of mental-health records of two State’s witnesses. OPINION HOLDS: Because we did not contemplate one of the witness’s mental-health records would be unavailable when we issued the first remand, we clarify the scope of Iowa Code section 622.10(4) (2016) in this appeal. Finding no language in the statute entitling Retterath to a retrial based on the unavailability of a witness’s records, we reverse the order granting a new trial. But we remand again for the court to conduct an in camera review of the other State’s witness, as directed in the first remand order.